Regina v Grant - [2008] NSWSC 784

CITATION: Regina v Grant [2008] NSWSC 784

HEARING DATE(S): 28 July 2008

JUDGMENT DATE :
31 July 2008

JUDGMENT OF: Johnson J at 1

DECISION: 1. The Accused, Craig James Grant, is unfit to be tried for the offences of the murder of Jasmine Bell on 30 July 2007 and the attempted murder of Andrew O’Grady on 30 July 2007.
2. In accordance with s.14 of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990, the Accused is to be referred to the Mental Health Review Tribunal.
3. Pursuant to s.14(b)(iii) of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990, the Accused is remanded in custody pending the determination of the Mental Health Review Tribunal under s.16 of that Act.
4. It is recommended that the attention of the Accused’s treating psychiatrist within Justice Health be drawn to the recommendation of Dr Olav Nielssen, supported by Dr Samson Roberts, that the Accused be referred to the psychiatric ward of Long Bay Hospital for a trial of Clozapine treatment.
5. The reports of Dr Olav Nielssen concerning the Accused dated 27 November 2007, 22 January 2008 and 29 April 2008 and the report of Samson Roberts dated 16 June 2008 are to be placed in a sealed envelope addressed to the Treating Psychiatrist, Metropolitan Reception and Remand Centre, Silverwater and that envelope accompany the Accused when he is returned to his former custody as a result of the orders made.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - accused charged with murder and attempted murder - inquiry into fitness to be tried - finding of unfitness to be tried

LEGISLATION CITED: Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: R v Presser (1958) VR 45
R v Rivkin (2004) 59 NSWLR 284
Subramaniam v The Queen (2004) 211 ALR 1; [2004] HCA 51

PARTIES: Regina (Crown)
Craig James Grant (Accused)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2007/5782

COUNSEL: Mr MM Hobart SC (Crown)
Mr M J Ierace SC (Accused)

SOLICITORS: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid Commission of New South Wales (Accused)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
CRIMINAL LIST

Johnson J

31 July 2008

2007/5782 Regina v Craig James Grant
JUDGMENT

1 JOHNSON J: On 28 July 2008, I conducted an inquiry under the provisions of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990 as to whether the Accused, Craig James Grant, is unfit to be tried for the offences of murder and attempted murder.

2 The Accused has been arraigned in this Court upon an indictment alleging that, on 30 July 2007, at Fairfield he did murder Jasmine Bell and that on and at the same date and place he did attempt to wound with intent to murder Andrew O’Grady.

3 At the conclusion of the hearing on 28 July 2008, having considered the evidence and submissions of the parties, I announced my finding that the Accused was unfit to be tried and made consequential orders and an associated recommendation. This judgment contains my reasons for making those orders…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Regina v Grant

Details

AGLC: Regina v Grant [2008] NSWSC 784
Case: [2008] NSWSC 784
Decision Date: 31 July 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Regina v Grant, the accused was charged with the murder of one person and the attempted murder of another. The case came before the court for an inquiry into the accused's fitness to be tried. The issue at hand was whether the accused was fit to stand trial and participate in his defence. The inquiry was necessary because there were significant concerns about the accused's mental state, which had implications for his ability to understand the proceedings, instruct his legal representatives, and participate in his defence.

The court was tasked with determining whether the accused's mental condition rendered him unfit to be tried. This involved assessing the accused's cognitive abilities, understanding of the charges, and capacity to engage in the legal process. The court examined evidence from medical experts and other witnesses, including observations of the accused's behaviour and statements. The primary consideration was whether the accused's mental state was such that a fair trial could not be conducted. The court found that the accused was indeed unfit to be tried, as his mental condition significantly impaired his ability to participate in the proceedings.

As a result of the findings, the court determined that the accused was unfit to be tried for the charges of murder and attempted murder. The court ordered that the accused be detained in a secure mental health facility until such time as he was deemed fit to stand trial. This decision ensured that the accused received appropriate treatment and care for his mental health issues while also upholding the principle that a fair trial could only proceed if the accused was fit to participate.

Orders